First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Belief VS Love
4769 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
first of all let me get things straight.....this is not a religious forum so dont post if ur not comfortable.

honestly i will NEVER pick my belief over someone that i love with all my heart ....but thats only me becuz religion doesnt play a big role in my life.....i wanna see how people think when it comes to Religion and Love if they only had one choice.

So........keep it simple......
NO converting here
8990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / Ronald McDonald's...
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
Reminds me of how people say:"For the love of god...". Guess I'd prefer the love of another human, we'd have more in common anyway.
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
This is what I have to say...

Love is not a monolithic idea that is constant among all things. The reality is that love is different depending on what it is we tag as the beloved. It is contradictory to say that I can only love one person, such to the extent that in loving a "God", I fail to love someone else.

You have to distinguish what "love" you're talking about. The Greek classic sense of love as either Agape or eros is a useful distinction, since that means I can love anyone freely to the extent that it is defined within these familiarities.

In the end, you're contradicting yourself when you're trying to compare beliefs (which you mean to say Religious convictions) and Love, because Love is, in itself, a belief, and can also be understood as a religious conviction.

Too much contradiction in your thoughts, I'm afraid... and your choice of words and use of terms makes it all the more flawed.
11277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Iloilo City, PH
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
^you think too much... btw you forgot to add filial...

i think what he means to say is that... your lover is of a different religion and you have a choice either 1.) dump her and stay true to your beliefs or 2.) stay true to your beliefs and fight for love... he did say no conversions... (it's perfect for option 2)

my own definition: eros - naughty love *wink wink nudge nudge* agape - pure love, divine love or whatever but it is the highest form of love and filial - brotherly love or as i call it "love without malice"
8990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / Ronald McDonald's...
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
^^Lol ed, this is actually a problem for some people. No need for you to dissect it like that. Also, you're not very clear yourself. I don't see how throwing the terms "agape" and "eros" in would help the discussion. There's no pressing relation.

While it's rather rather obvious that the love of a human towards a god is "eros", humans should be able to feel both "eros" and "agape" for eachother. I don't see what you're getting at, you mean it'd be better to only talk about "eros" love from human to human in comparison to "eros" love from human to god? ;-)

But that's not his point, he's not asking which love you'd choose about the other, but would you choose your belief or rligious conviction over mortal love ?

"In the end, you're contradicting yourself when you're trying to compare beliefs (which you mean to say Religious convictions) and Love, because Love is, in itself, a belief, and can also be understood as a religious conviction"

Well, how did you come to the conclusion that love is similar to a religious conviction? Actually, another human is something very graspable, while an entity is not.

In cases like this, I guess I agree with what juspasby said in the first post...keep it simple...
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
^ point taken. Actually, love to God is Agape, not Eros. I threw those in to make a distinction between what the Greeks believed to be earthly, romantic love, Eros, and "otherworldly", selfless love, Agape.

In the end, there is no reason for the two to clash (Agape and Eros) since they are inherent in the individual. Putting it in a cultural perspective, as Manzi pointed out, makes it a little more tricky.


Well, how did you come to the conclusion that love is similar to a religious conviction?


The Christian religion is a conviction to love ~ even if a majority of it's followers may fail to see this.


Actually, another human is something very graspable, while an entity is not.


Love itself, is not very graspable, and yet we identify it with solid things, sure ~ but it does not mean that "love" is, in itself, the epitome of the object that is embodied with it. Therefore, if one is not satisfied by embodying love in the context of a human, we cannot blame him if he sees love in the sense that he believes it to be so (be it agape or eros) in something that is not necessarily "graspable".

I don't want to interpret what your saying as "we can only love that which we can hold in our hands", but it sounds like it, unfortunately. This is a very materialistic view of love. I think the part of the human that should be loved is that which cannot be grapsed ~ so much so that this is, in extention, the same love that draws others to love that which is an "entity", or in short, "cannot be seen".


But in the end, you're right... maybe I think too much. I just get annoyed when "love" and "belief" are simplified as such. They are very sensitive topics, so please forgive me if I end up blabbering and the like.
228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Cambridge UK
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
dude ure not supposed to bring in the complex philosophical and scientific debunking until the hardcore zealots have had a chance to embarrass themselves. Its no fun otherwise.
8990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / Ronald McDonald's...
Offline
Posted 7/29/07

edsamac wrote:

^ point taken. Actually, love to God is Agape, not Eros. I threw those in to make a distinction between what the Greeks believed to be earthly, romantic love, Eros, and "otherworldly", selfless love, Agape.


Well, how did you come to the conclusion that love is similar to a religious conviction?


The Christian religion is a conviction to love ~ even if a majority of it's followers may fail to see this.



How can the love to god be "agape", since the love god's supposed to have for human is more "agape" style. By christian definition ( correct me if I'm wrong ) "agape" is the unconditional love from (usually) a higher to a lesser being, while "eros" is the love towards someone "higher" in seeking of completion/elevation.





Actually, another human is something very graspable, while an entity is not.


I don't want to interpret what your saying as "we can only love that which we can hold in our hands", but it sounds like it, unfortunately. This is a very materialistic view of love. I think the part of the human that should be loved is that which cannot be grapsed ~ so much so that this is, in extention, the same love that draws others to love that which is an "entity", or in short, "cannot be seen".



You misread me, I never pointed out my personal views, just pointed out the difference. While love of course is not graspable, however love for something graspable like a human and love for something ungraspable like an entity should be distinct. For one, because in this case where the ungraspable starts the belief comes in. The part of a human which cannot be "grasped", like the soul are still very different from an entity, because some might say they could be "felt".

Not to meantion that believing in another human, is very different from believing in a god. Plus, a "conviction to love" through religion is not the same as the believe in another human out of "romantic feelings".
167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Manila Philippines
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
you don't have to pick one way or the other...its not a choice either... people ask god for a partner sometimes they even ask him for some signs, a priest said "just follow your heart...god will understand" listen to your heart, whatever your deepest desire in your heart that is god will.
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
@ ahojcookie: I see your point... but may I ask:

Is it correct to say that in order to love someone, you must believe in them? And in addition, is it possible to believe in someone, without necessarily loving them?

(I hope you don't get me wrong on arguing with you. I'm actually enjoying this debate and learning much from you. )


By christian definition ( correct me if I'm wrong ) "agape" is the unconditional love from (usually) a higher to a lesser being, while "eros" is the love towards someone "higher" in seeking of completion/elevation.


Agape is, as you said, understood as "unconditional love", and is reflected by the Christian view of the Man-God, Jesus, who shared this Agape with people like us. It is in his sacrifice, that the human individual was "enlightened" with the grace and spirit of agape (in short, in learning from him, people realized that God's love for us, agape, is not only his, but is ours as well, and can be shared with fellow humans). This is a little theological, and not philosophical, so I cannot debate with this argument.
11277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Iloilo City, PH
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
it is possible to delude yourself into believing, just to justify your love... (soap opera effect)

and it is also possible to believe in someone without feelings of affection...
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
I see my name thrown around often in this thread...I'm flattered.

"I just get annoyed when "love" and "belief" are simplified as such."
This is what I like to do in such cases:
OP, wtf you talking about? Speak sense fool! Capitalization! Not to many "..."!

Don't have a religious conviction so you can make it out for yourselves...
And I'm not going to bother to get into the Greek words for love and Christian interpretations with you monkeys.

:::love::: ( me pretending to be shelly)
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
^ ^ Nice one... It makes sense in a very sarcastic way.

Strangely enough, I've suddenly lost track of what we were arguing about... -_-; In the end, my "beliefs" would still overcome my "love" for someone. I believe in the integrity of the human-self, and it is in this integrity that one can find this "love". When it is found, there should be no contradiction ~ even if, say I'm a Christian, and the one I love is Muslim.

@ Eros: As expected from you...
8990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / Ronald McDonald's...
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
@Ed

Hence it (agape) can not be the love from a human to god or at least that'd be a sacrilege

Lol, I don't feel like a teacher really, but I'm fine with discussions. as to your question:

I pesonally wouldn't say you necessarily have to believe in someone to love them and it is possible to believe in someone without loving them, although admittedly it's probably love-provoking for many. But assuming a lot of people agree with these to conditions, I will once again say believing in a human is not the same as believing in a god/entity. Loving a human is not the same as loving a god/entity. Although in both cases these two states might be given, they are very different.

@Eros, damn you and your weird username =P
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/29/07
^ Admittedly, I'd say I wasn't clear on that. I meant to say that loving them (man and god) are very different, but they are forms of love nontheless, and they should not (to a certain extent) contradict, lest there is a conflict between personal beliefs and religious convictions.

It's a contention between what you "know you should do" (religion based), and what you "know you want to do". Finding the balance between those to, or wanting what you want to do to be what you should do in ordering relationships helps relieve this tension.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.